Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That is just snide.Obviously some people are bad parents but you can’t punish all parents because of a few.
Oh wait, that’s the liberal answer to all problems.
Proselytizing are we?
At least 168 districts governing 5,904 schools nationwide have rules on the books that prevent faculty and staff from disclosing to parents a student’s gender status without that student’s permission, according to a list compiled by the conservative group Parents Defending Education
What does that say? The schools can’t release the information without the students’ permission .Is that true or false?Yet again, we see you promoting a view, in this case by the PDE, that it's a decision made by the schools to hide discussions about transgenderism. It isn't. You keep being told that and you keep doing your very best to ignore it.
The law that prevents them from releasing any info, if so requested by the pupil, is a federal one. So if it's a public school, they are all obliged to follow it. They don't need it on the books.
More nonsense...
What the article says is that some schools note their inability to share information with parents if the student so demands. It is written in a way that makes it look as if those schools are instigating this. And they actually ask parents that if they know of any school not listed who do the same then contact them so they can add the name to the list.What does that say? The schools can’t release the information without the students’ permission .Is that true or false?
It makes no difference to me why the school can’t release the information, just that they can’t.What the article says is that some schools note their inability to share information with parents if the student so demands. It is written in a way that makes it look as if those schools are instigating this. And they actually ask parents that if they know of any school not listed who do the same then contact them so they can add the name to the list.
Hey, why don't you contact them and tell what you know? That all schools are obliged to follow federal law in not releasing personal info. They should be listing every public school in the country. Gee, it'll save them some time adding names one by one. I'm sure they'll thank you.
It's a farcically inept means to try to suggest that schools are the instigators. And you've posted that link to the same end. And when called on it, you throw up your hands and say 'well gee, it's not untrue that they can't release the info is it'.
Please, give yourself a break. Take it from me that it doesn't look good for you trying this tactic every few posts when anyone who has read the thread and has the facts can see what you are doing.
Yes it does. Because you've been implying that the schools are instigating this and are at fault. Exactly what PDE were doing.It makes no difference to me why the school can’t release the information...
No it doesn’t. Read my posts. I said school officials may feel that their hands are tied. Read the last article I posted.Yes it does. Because you've been implying that the schools are instigating this and are at fault. Exactly what PDE were doing.
Yes it does. Because firstly, if people know that the schools aren't secretly instigating this and are actually obliged to keep discussions with a student private if that student requests by federal law, then they won't hold the school accountable. Which so many people are trying to do. And secondly they will realise that it's almost certainly the parents' attitudes to this matter that makes the student want to keep the info from them.No it doesn’t. Read my posts. I said school officials may feel that their hands are tied. Read the last article I posted.
You can’t apply that to every case. You are punishing all parents for the actions of some.Yes it does. Because firstly, if people know that the schools aren't secretly instigating this and are actually obliged to keep discussions with a student private if that student requests by federal law, then they won't hold the school accountable. Which so many people are trying to do. And secondly they will realise that it's almost certainly the parents' attitudes to this matter that makes the student want to keep the info from them.
And from that they can see where the problem lies.
I'm complaining about the ones who keep trying to convince others that this is some nefarious underground left wing secretive movement. When the reason for the lack on info is closer to home. No, is actually the home itself. They are deflecting from their own problems and trying to blame others.You can’t apply that to every case. You are punishing all parents for the actions of some.
From the time I started posting about this my point was that it is happening. I don’t care why it’s happening just that it is happening and parents need to be aware
It’s not a secret. People are very open about wanting to teach gender identity and sexual orientation to 3 year olds and allow minors to transition without their parents knowledge. It’s not secretive at allI'm complaining about the ones who keep trying to convince others that this is some nefarious underground left wing secretive movement. When the reason for the lack on info is closer to home. No, is actually the home itself. They are deflecting from their own problems and trying to blame others.
Parents have rights, certainly, but so do children. On those unhappy occasions when parents are a threat to their children the children need protection from them. I think that is what lies behind the federal law protecting children's right to confidentiality. Children have to be able to communicate safely when their parents are a danger to them. The federal protection of children is not restricted to - or aimed at - the issue you are obsessed about.It’s not a secret. People are very open about wanting to teach gender identity and sexual orientation to 3 year olds and allow minors to transition without their parents knowledge. It’s not secretive at all
And when they write songs and post videos that are supposedly satire and march chanting “We’re here we’re queer and we’re coming for your children “it’s even more obvious . So it’s not a secretive movement at all.
I have to agree with you but in this case it’s not easy to find a balance between protecting some children and the parents 14th amendment rightsParents have rights, certainly, but so do children. On those unhappy occasions when parents are a threat to their children the children need protection from them. I think that is what lies behind the federal law protecting children's right to confidentiality. Children have to be able to communicate safely when their parents are a danger to them. The federal protection of children is not restricted to - or aimed at - the issue you are obsessed about.
Your claim is that parents' rights are limited. Of course they are. They always have been. In a civil society parents cannot do just anything they want with their children.
And you didn't even take the few seconds I took to show it was a cruel hoax.
Gay Men's Chorus dog-piled with death threats by vile QAnon conspiracy theorists
The San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus has been dog-piled with death threats by QAnon conspiracy theorists over a satirical song about teaching kidswww.thepinknews.com
All this does is show how easy people like yourself fall for these type of despicable acts. I'm up to the back teeth with people complaining about the 'lying msm' but this type of crud is sucked up without fail.
How about an apology to the members of that choir for posting such a thing?
Nobody says it is easy. One reason laws are put in place is to set a framework for the difficult judgments people have to make. The federal law under discussion here is one such. It need only be invoked in cases that require it.I have to agree with you but in this case it’s not easy to find a balance between protecting some children and the parents 14th amendment rights
I agree in part but labeling disagreement as hate is just a tactic to poison the well of people who disagree with youNobody says it is easy. One reason laws are put in place is to set a framework for the difficult judgments people have to make. The federal law under discussion here is one such. It need only be invoked in cases that require it.
Children who need to be protected from their parents' unreasonable demands are not in a good place. They need protection, not cant about parents' 'rights'.
Doctrinaire posturing such as I have observed on this thread and elsewhere on CF is at best unhelpful and in many cases hateful. Dark mutterings about a conspiracy to 'get at' children are as much motivated by hatred as by any wish to protect them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?